The body of a man found dead on Hayes Road in Carnesville, Georgia, was identified by law enforcement officials as belonging to 32-year-old Keith Ratliff, the weapons manager of YouTube’s third most popular channel, FPSRussia.

FPSRussia team member Kitty Wandel confirmed the news on Twitter, saying Ratliff, a “firearms marketing consultant” from Kentucky, was involved in “everything from pulling pranks to finding almost impossible weapons to use in videos.”

The Franklin County Sheriff’s Office said Ratliff appears to have died of a single gunshot to the head, and it was treating his death as a homicide.

Carrying a weapon is apparently still not enough to thwart would-be killers, I fully expect the NRA to begin promoting the habit of carrying TWO weapons.

The lawyer representing three of the men charged with the gang rape and murder of a medical student aboard a moving bus in New Delhi has blamed the victims for the assault, saying he has never heard of a “respected lady” being raped in India.

Manohar Lal Sharma said his clients will plead not guilty to all charges tomorrow when they make their next court appearance. His comments come as Indians have reacted with outrage to the opinions of politicians and a religious preacher who have accused westernized women of inviting sexual assaults. Sharma said the male companion of the murdered 23-year-old was “wholly responsible” for the incident as the unmarried couple should not have been on the streets at night.

“Until today I have not seen a single incident or example of rape with a respected lady,” Sharma said in an interview at a cafe outside the Supreme Court in India’s capital. “Even an underworld don would not like to touch a girl with respect.”

A defense contractor whose subsidiary was accused in a lawsuit of conspiring to torture detainees at the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq has paid $5.28 million to 71 former inmates held there and at other U.S.-run detention sites between 2003 and 2007.

The settlement in the case involving Engility Holdings Inc. of Chantilly, Va., marks the first successful effort by lawyers for former prisoners at Abu Ghraib and other detention centers to collect money from a U.S. defense contractor in lawsuits alleging torture. Another contractor, CACI, is expected to go to trial over similar allegations this summer.

The payments were disclosed in a document that Engility filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission two months ago but which has gone essentially unnoticed.

An Army private suspected of sending reams of classified documents to the secret-sharing WikiLeaks website was illegally punished at a Marine Corps brig and should get 112 days cut from any prison sentence he receives if convicted, a military judge ruled Tuesday.

Army Col. Denise Lind ruled during a pretrial hearing that authorities went too far in their strict confinement of Pfc. Bradley Manning for nine months in a Marine Corps brig in Quantico, Va., in 2010 and 2011. Manning was confined to a windowless cell 23 hours a day, sometimes with no clothing. Brig officials said it was to keep him from hurting himself or others.

Lind said Manning’s confinement was “more rigorous than necessary.” She added that the conditions “became excessive in relation to legitimate government interests.”

[..]

Jeff Paterson of the Bradley Manning Support Network, which is funding Manning’s defense, said the sentencing credit “doesn’t come close to compensating Bradley” for his harsh treatment.

“The ruling is not strong enough to give the military pause before mistreating the next American soldier awaiting trial,” Paterson wrote in an email.

Maurice R. Greenberg, A.I.G.’s former chief executive, who remains a major investor in the company, filed the lawsuit in 2011 on behalf of fellow shareholders. He has since urged A.I.G. to join the case, a move that could nudge the government into settlement talks.

The choice is not a simple one for the insurer. Its board members, most of whom joined after the bailout, owe a duty to shareholders to consider the lawsuit. If the board does not give careful consideration to the case, Mr. Greenberg could challenge its decision to abstain.

Should Mr. Greenberg snare a major settlement without A.I.G., the company could face additional lawsuits from other shareholders. Suing the government would not only placate the 87-year-old former chief, but would put A.I.G. in line for a potential payout.

This is from the same article that was posted here yesterday, but shows a bit more nuance on the situation: AIG isn’t originating the lawsuit. The AIG is effectively legally forced to consider whether or not to join a lawsuit initiated by one of its shareholders.

In response to the news, Senator Elizabeth Warren released a sharply worded statement that’s worth quoting in full:

“Beginning in 2008, the federal government poured billions of dollars into AIG to save it from bankruptcy. AIG’s reckless bets nearly crashed our entire economy. Taxpayers across this country saved AIG from ruin, and it would be outrageous for this company to turn around and sue the federal government because they think the deal wasn’t generous enough. Even today, the government provides an ongoing, stealth bailout, propping up AIG with special tax breaks — tax breaks that Congress should stop. AIG should thank American taxpayers for their help, not bite the hand that fed them for helping them out in a crisis.“

This is very interesting, and here’s why. Warren didn’t merely castigate the company for ingratitude. She put it in a crucial larger context, specifically noting that Wall Street recklessness was what caused the country’s economic meltdown in the first place. She also used this as an occasion to indict the continued tax breaks that the company continues to enjoy — calling them a “stealth bailout.”

Desiato on
January 10th, 2013 at 10:46:

Warren didn’t merely castigate the company for doing something it hadn’t done yet, she also recommended it do something it was already doing.

Hmmm. I was more impressed with Warren before I read that bit.

Desiato on
January 10th, 2013 at 10:53:

My comment above was a bit hyperbolic and more critical of Warren than I should have been. To be fair, Warren phrased it as “it *would* be outrageous for this company to…”, recognizing that AIG hadn’t joined the suit yet.

I was set off more by the idea that you posted this as if Warren’s opinion on AIG somehow indicates that there was indeed fire where people claimed to see smoke. It doesn’t.